Abstract
A response to Fraley and Vargas' paper which acknowledges the strength of their challenge, but argues that the model of instructional organization they propose overemphasizes the knowledge transmission function of higher education institutions, ignores the important role of socialization and self-initiated study in students' development, and rules out the impact on the teacher of interaction with students. An alternative approach is proposed which recognizes the importance of instruction while retaining faculty involvement in it.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bohr, N. (1958). “On Atoms and Human Knowledge”,Daedalus (Spring). 164–175.
Ericksen, S. C. (1972). “Ten Years at CRLT,”Memo to the Faculty (University of Michigan CRLT) No. 49 (September).
Heisenberg, W. (1971)Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations. New York: Harper and Row.
Keller, F. S. (1971). “A Programmed System of Instruction,” in Becker, W. C., ed.,An Empirical Basis for Change in Education. Chicago: Science Research Associates. pp. 506–522.
McClintock, C. (1971). “Toward a Place for Study in a World of Instruction,”Teachers College Record, 73.2: 161–205.
Shore, B. (1974). McGill University Department of Educational Research. Personal communication.
Skinner, B. F. (1971).Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Knopf.
Trivett, D. A. (1973). “Post-Secondary Education: the New Meaning,”ERIC Research Currents. Washington, AAHE, 1973.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I am indebted to my class of doctoral students in Higher Education who met with me to discuss a draft of the Fraley-Vargas proposal. Their perspective benefitted me greatly in developing my response.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Francis, J.B. Faculty centers for educational development: An alternative to the instructional organization. High Educ 4, 97–103 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01569106
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01569106